A LIST OF BRITISH EOSES ' 



SECTION PIMPINELLIFOLI^. 

 GROUP SPINOSISSIMA. 



E. spiNosissiMA Linn. Sp. PL p. 491. V.-c. Sussex, 15, 17, 38, 

 41, 80; Perth, 96. 



R. PiMPiNELLiFOLiA Linn. Syst. Nat. 4, p. 1062. There is 

 much less variation in this group than in most of those of other 

 sections, perhaps because we have fewer individuals to deal with. 

 It will not, therefore, be inconsistent with the treatment of the 

 other groups if we regard B. j^imjnnellifolia merely as a smooth- 

 peduncled variety of B. spinosissima, though both type and 

 variety present among themselves differences in stem armature 

 and in foliage. V.-c. 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 22, 58, 65, 66, 96 ; Channel 

 Islands. 



E. PIMPINELLIFOLIA var. ROSEA Koch, Syn. 3, p. 194. This is, 

 I think, the correct name for the form with rose-coloured flowers 

 from W. Kent, which has also been gathered at Llandudno. V.-c. 

 16, 49. 



E. ciPHiANA Sibbald, Scotia 111. ii. p. 46. The true plant of 

 Sibbald, referred to in B. E. p. 22, has flowers variegated with 

 deep or pale rose and white, not uniformly rose. So far as I 

 know, it has only been gathered in Perthshire. The plant usually 

 met with in cultivation under this name, having uniformly rose 

 flowers, should be referred to the preceding. V.-c. Perth. 



E. EiPARTii Desegl. Ess. Monogr. p. 47. I have seen no 

 further specimens of this, nor have I been able to find it on Barnes 

 Common, where the type is plentiful enough. As in B. arvensis, 

 the leaflets sometimes have a fine denticle or two on a few of the 

 teeth, not amounting to biserration, and without the glandular 

 development on the petioles and midribs. V.-c. 17. 



E. MiTissiMA Gmel. Fl. Bad. Alsat. p. 358. V.-c. 42, 49. 



E. RUBELLA Sm. E. B. t. 2521. I am still unable to dis- 

 sociate the red-fruited forms of B. sjnnosissivia from pimpinelU- 

 folia X alpina, which is the continental interpretation of Smith's 

 plant, though of course extremes are widely different. The British 

 form I believe to be the former, though it presents other dis- 

 tinguishing features besides the fruit (see B. E. pp. 24, 25). V.-c. 

 66 ; also near the Forth Bridge (Pickard), county not stated. 



SECTION PIMPINELLIFOLIA HYBEIDA. 



The diiaQculty of segregating the individuals of this section 

 into groups corresponding with those of their parents is very 

 great. In very many cases the examination of dried specimens 

 does not reveal their parentage, and even when growing it can, in 

 many cases, only be guessed at. Nor is intentional crossing and 

 cultivation likely to throw much light on the question. If it be 

 admitted, as I think it must be, that all our groups run into one 



